[Cite as State v. Norris, 2013-Ohio-262.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98250

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

SHANWANDA NORRIS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-554947 

BEFORE: Keough, J., Jones, P.J., and Blackmon, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 31, 2013 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Gregory T. Stralka 

6509 Brecksville Road 

P.O. Box 31776 

Independence, Ohio 44131 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Daniel T. Van 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Shanwanda Norris, appeals from the trial court’s 

judgment, rendered after a jury verdict, finding her guilty of vandalism, attempted 

aggravated arson, and aggravated arson, and sentencing her to an aggregate prison term of 

four years. Norris contends that her conviction for vandalism was not supported by 

sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding no merit 

to the appeal, we affirm. 

 I. Background 

{¶2} Norris was charged with vandalism in violation of R.C. 2909.05(A), 

attempted aggravated arson in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2909.02(A)(2), and 

aggravated arson in violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(2). She pleaded not guilty and the 

matter proceeded to trial. 

{¶3} The state presented six witnesses at trial, four of whom presented testimony 

relevant to Norris’s assignments of error. Sullea Martin testified that she owned rental 

property at 14204 Edgewood Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio and that the property was in good 

condition when Norris rented it from her on June 13, 2011. Martin said that just nine 

weeks later, however, when Martin evicted Norris because she refused to pay rent, the 

property was in “disgusting” condition. When Martin inspected the property on August 

26, 2011, after Norris had been evicted, she observed trash in the living room, feces on the 

dining room floor, trash and clothes throughout the kitchen, and gnats, feces, and trash 

throughout the basement. Martin testified that she also observed that the front door was 
kicked in and broken off its hinges, the front security door was broken, and at least six 

windows were broken out. Martin said that each window cost $139 and calculated that 

there was over $800 in damage to the windows. She testified further that it would cost 

between $500 to $800 to replace the security door and calculated that the total damage due 

to the vandalism was over $1300. 

{¶4} During the night of August 28, 2011, a fire caused extensive damage to the 

property at 14204 Edgewood Avenue. Eric Burchak, a captain in the investigation unit of 

the Cleveland Fire Department, responded to the fire at 4:15 a.m. that morning. After 

investigating the scene, Burchak concluded that someone had poured gasoline near the 

dining room on the first floor of the house and intentionally started the fire. 

{¶5} Andrea Lloyd testified that she lived two doors down from Norris on 

Edgewood Avenue and that she was friendly with Norris and her children. Lloyd testified 

that as she and Norris sat on her porch on August 23, 2011, Norris told her that she was 

upset with Martin and was going to try to burn the house down. Lloyd testified that when 

Norris left, she watched her walk back to her house and break out the front picture window 

of the home. Later, as Lloyd walked down the street by Norris’s house, she saw Norris 

standing in the driveway. Lloyd said that “it looked like she was throwing something 

down into the basement window and at the same time [she was] hollering ‘it’s too wet, it’s 

not going [to] take.’” 

{¶6} Edna Hamilton, who lived next door to Norris on Edgewood Avenue, 

testified that she also heard Norris threaten to burn the house down. Hamilton said that 
on August 23, 2011, she was sitting on her porch watching her daughter do Norris’s hair. 

According to Hamilton, Norris stated that her landlord was evicting her and that she was 

going to burn the house down so “nobody will be able to live in that house again.” 

Hamilton testified that later that evening she heard the sound of glass breaking at 

Norris’s house. She did not see who broke the glass but she immediately looked out her 

window and saw Norris walking from her house down the street to Lloyd’s house. 

Hamilton testified that on the night of August 28, 2011, she again heard the sound of 

breaking glass next door; shortly after she smelled smoke and saw the house burning. 

 II. Analysis 

{¶7} In her first assignment and second assignments of error, Norris contends that 

her conviction for vandalism was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence.1

 

{¶8} The test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the prosecution 

mets its burden of production at trial. State v. Bowden, 8th Dist. No. 92266, 

2009-Ohio-3598, ¶ 12. An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of 

the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial 

to determine whether such evidence, if belived, would convince the average mind of the 

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after 

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact 

 1

She does not challenge her convictions for aggravated arson and attempted 

aggravated arson. 

 
could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541. 

{¶9} A manifest weight challenge, on the other hand, questions whether the 

prosecution met its burden of persuasion. State v. Ponce, 8th Dist. No. 91329, 

2010-Ohio-1741, ¶ 17, citing State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79, 80, 434 N.E.2d 1356 

(1982). A reviewing court may review the judgment of conviction if it appears that the 

trier of fact “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the 

conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Thompkins at 387. A finding that 

a conviction was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a 

finding of sufficiency. Id. at 388. 

{¶10} Norris was convicted of vandalism in violation of R.C. 2909.05(A), which 

states that “[n]o person shall knowingly cause serious physical harm to an occupied 

structure or any of its contents.” “Serious physical harm” means “physical harm to 

property that results in loss to the value of the property of one thousand dollars or more.” 

R.C. 2909.05(F)(2). 

{¶11} Norris contends that her conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence 

and against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state did not produce 

sufficient evidence that the damage to the property was one thousand dollars or more. 

Specifically, she contends that although the damage to the windows as of August 26, 2011, 

when Martin inspected the property, was $800, the damage to the door occurred on August 

28, 2011, when the arson occurred. She argues that the state cannot combine the damage 
amounts from the two separate incidents to meet the threshold dollar requirement for 

vandalism. Norris’s argument is without merit. 

{¶12} Martin, the property owner, testified that when she inspected the house on 

August 26, 2011, there were at least six windows broken out, the front door was kicked in, 

and the front security door was damaged. Martin testified that she made a police report 

the next day regarding the vandalism and her report included the damage to the front door. 

 She further testified that the total amount of damage to the windows and front door was 

over $1,300. Although Captain Burchak testified that the back door of the house was 

forced open on August 28, 2011, the day of the fire, Martin’s undisputed testimony 

unequivocally demonstrated that the front door had been vandalized before the fire and 

that Norris caused over $1000 of damage to the home before she set it on fire several days 

later. In light of this evidence, Norris’s conviction for vandalism in violation of R.C. 

2909.05(A) was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of 

the evidence. The assignments of error are therefore overruled. 

{¶13} Affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR